The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-12-23

her holding may in some proper manner be re-
duced in favor of creditors By such sale the
title to two thirds only of the real estate not ex
ceeding $40. 600 in value passes to the purchaser
The one-third may be reduced to onefourth &C.
cording to the value of the real estate by the
judgment creditor taking proceedings against
her 10 court.
l3949 Justice G.. Crowell ct al. vs. James B.
Jaqua. Jay C. C. Affirmed. Niblack, 1.-THE
act of April 8, 1885, repealed by Implication.
Sec. 1863. r. s, 1881, as regards the subject of
the assessment .of adjacent lots for improve
ments made upon streets and alleys. Sec.
3165, r.. s., in so far at least as it provided a
remedy in cases where the enforcement Of an
assessment for improvement of an alley was
sought, repealed by the act OF 1885. There
is no law in force authorizing the issuance of a
precept to the treasurer of city for the
forcement of lien resulting from such
assessment and has not been since the act OF
1885 took effect
1862 Elizabeth Bottles ct al. vs. VIM. j.
Miller. Harrison c. G. Reversed. Howk j.
i. payment by one of four JOINT and several
makers OF a note. will not stay the running of
the statute of limitations and defeat its opera
ton, as defense, as to the other makers of the
note; z mortgage on real estate, unless it
has been released satisfied by the mortgage
or his assigns, will remain a continuing security
and may be enforced without regard to lapse of
time, so long any part of the debt secured re-
of limitations
14066. John s. Denny ct al VS. Mary Dem
ny. Washington C. c. Affirmed. Mitchell c.
J.-Under the statute widow may select and
take property to the extent of $500. at the APP
praised value, after the return of the inventory
by the administrator and before sale.
1850 Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
Company Richard L.. Talbot. Marion S. c.
Reversed. Mitchell, c. il Where the assign
ment OF a mortgage Is within the registry act so
that the assignee Is authorized to give notice by
recording his assignment, his neglect to procure
and record an assignment is such negligence as
will estop the assignee from asserting the pri-
GRITTY of his mortgage over tina: of subsequent
mortgage who took his security on the faith of
a release executed by the Administrative of the
original MORTGAGE. 2 The act OF 1877. which
provides for the assignment of any mortgage of
record applies to mortgages then of record and
heretofore equitably assigned well those
mortgage without notice will be justified in
relying upon a release of a prior mortgage exc
cuted by the ADMINISTRATIVE of prior mort
gage. entered of record four years after the
above act came in force. without demanding the
production of the note and mortgage. aud with
out lnquiring as to the authority of the admin
istratrlx to execute the release.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Hon. n. b. Taylor, Judge
VIM. Shryer ct al VS.. Samuel Cummings; on
account. Finding for plaintiff for 500 49,
j. c. Whitcomb VS.. Sarah Drake ct al; fore
closure. Finding for plaintiff for 81, 005. 3d.
mortgage foreclosed
Henry A. Schrader VS. VIM. E. Bush; COM
plant on note. Cause dismissed.
Room 2-Hon D. w. Howe Judge
Erwin D. Ryan vs. Ella Ryan; divorce On
Room 3--Hon. Chas- A. Dryer. Acting Judge.
Sarah f. Kaler Adam C. kaler; divorce
Granted on ground of cruel treatment
SUITS FILED.
Eastman. Schleicher & Lee vs. Charles Fl.
Vesehlems ct al; complaint for attachment. De-
mand $3.50.
Berkshire Life Insurance Company VS. Nelson
Thomas; complaint to foreclose mortgage. De-
mand 81, 900.
Henry Ginz vs. Charles P Conrad ct al; suit
on judgment. Demand 500.
CRIMINAL COURT.
State VS.. James Powers horsestealing. Ar
raigned. Pleaded not guilty.
State VS.. James Fry; carrying concealed weap-
ons- Trial by court. Fined $25 and costs.
State Fred Patterson; petit larceny
Pleaded not guilty. Trial by court. Sentenced
to penitentiary for year.
State vs. James Howard; petit larceny and
embezzlement Trial by court Taken under
Amusement
CIRCUIT COURT.
Hon. Alex. c. Ayres Judge.
Albert Hitzelberger VS.. Edward Lutz; attach
ment and damage. On trial by jury